posted 07 February 2005 08:20 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
No one is “playing dumb”. The rules of civil debate require participants to define their terms to facilitate enhanced understanding.

---

It's funny that you had no problem with the meaning of "Negroid" a few weeks ago. You even defined it for another poster:

December 2004

Thought2: Of course not all Africans (Blacks) are Negroid nor are all Negroids African.

supercar: What are you referring to "Negroid" here?

Thought2: ...within the context of this sort of discussion I interpret it to mean the stereotypical "True Negro" or "Broad African" type, following Keita.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001288.html

quote:

---

All of these phenotypes would be recognized in current social terms as Black African.

---

But not Negroid. "Black African" is an empty social term Afronuts invented to blacken everyone. "Negroid" has a specific anthropological meaning, and there were no Negroids in East Africa until after 1000 B.C.

posted 07 February 2005 08:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roy_2k5:
The fact is Meds are hybrids, while East Africans are not

---

Ho-hum. Southern Europeans are paternally Caucasoid...as are Ethiopians:

And Somalis are also intermediate between Caucasoids and Negroids:

posted 07 February 2005 08:28 AM            

quote:

---

It's funny that you had no problem with the meaning of "Negroid" a few weeks ago. You even defined it for another poster

---

Non answer, the question is what is your definition of Negroid and Caucasoid. Two weeks into your ridiculous rant and you are not even able to define your own terms.

posted 07 February 2005 09:49 AM            

quote:

---

rasol:
Non answer, the question is what is your definition of Negroid and Caucasoid. Two weeks into your ridiculous rant and you are not even able to define your own terms.

---

The so-called "Negroid" or forest Negro, would then not apply to quite a large number of black Africans east, west, north and South. And so, what has this to do with black Africans? If we are to be that specific in looks for black folks, while disregarding geneology, then black Africans could be quite a large number of races, based on facial features, skin tone, and size of body. If this were the case, most north Europeans who are paler in comparison to southern Europeans, taller than the short stocky southern Europeans amongst other phenotypical differences, would be two different races. In that case southern Europeans aren't caucasoid. In the meantime, we are waiting for your definition of "Negroid" and "caucasoid", if indeed you were not using Thought's reference (which needless to say, is not Thought's definition of 'black African') to the terminology, as to imply it as your definition?

Evil Euro has been discredited enough now, that he feels the need to repeat everything that has been addressed in previous threads. He has no where to go, it appears.

posted 07 February 2005 10:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Ho-hum. Southern Europeans are paternally Caucasoid...as are Ethiopians

---

Euro-liar talking more crap, Ethiopians aren't paternally Caucasoid, the study you quoted from even says that they have uneven male vs female geneflow, stop telling lies you idiot based on an old outdated study and your failure to properly read a map, lets look at some up to date studies..

Percentage of Haplogroup J

Ethiopian Amhara
Total : 35.4%

posted 07 February 2005 10:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
But not Negroid. "Black African" is an empty social term Afronuts invented to blacken everyone.

---

quote:

---

"Negroid" has a specific anthropological meaning, and there were no Negroids in East Africa until after 1000 B.C.

---

posted 07 February 2005 11:09 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by HERU:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Evil Euro:
But not Negroid.[b] "Black African" is an empty social term Afronuts invented to blacken everyone.

---

quote:

---

"Negroid" has a specific anthropological meaning, and there were no Negroids in East Africa until after 1000 B.C.

---

[This message has been edited by HERU (edited 07 February 2005).][/B][/QUOTE]

This Dienekes parrot keeps repeating the same **** , but forgets that Elongated East Africans have been there since the Mesolithic, what a dumbass Evil Euro is.

posted 07 February 2005 11:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

This Dienekes parrot keeps repeating the same **** , but forgets that Elongated East Africans have been there since the Mesolithic, what a dumbass Evil Euro is.

---

You can say that again. Evil's rational is that East Africans have changed from his so-called hybrid Central African-Caucasians (since it was constantly discredited) to "non-racial" Africans, who happen to now be the proto-human for every single race on the planet. But his basis for saying that East Africans are paternally caucasoid, stems from a misguided notion that somehow E3b is caucasoid. Well what do you know, he actually believes that genes are "caucasoid" or "negroid". All the while, he has no idea what these terms mean. The guy is confused, any rational person can see that.

posted 07 February 2005 08:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
[b]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html[/B]

---

Thought Posts:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html

“Blood-factor analysis, for instance, shows many traits that cut across racial boundaries in a purely clinal fashion with very few if any "breaks" along racial boundaries. (A cline is a gradient of change, such as from people with a high frequency of blue eyes, as in Scandinavia, to people with a high frequency of brown eyes, as in Africa.)

Morphological characteristics, however, like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones. “

Thought Writes:

Evil “E”, one of the problems with this theory is that Keita has already demonstrated that East and NE Africans trend along a cline with other Africans.

Thought Posts:

S.O. Keita

Exploring northeast African metric craniofacial variation at the individual level: a comparative study using principal components analysis.

Am J Hum Biol. 2004 Nov-Dec;16(6):679-89

“The third principal component broadly describes trends within Africa and Europe: specifically, a change from a combination of a relatively narrower face and longer vault, to one of a wider face and shorter vault; it shows the northeast quadrant Africans along a cline with the other Africans.”

Thought Writes:

posted 07 February 2005 08:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
It's funny that you had no problem with the meaning of "Negroid" a few weeks ago. You even defined it for another poster:

December 2004

Thought2: Of course not all Africans (Blacks) are Negroid nor are all Negroids African.

supercar: What are you referring to "Negroid" here?

Thought2: ...within the context of this sort of discussion I interpret it to mean the stereotypical "True Negro" or "Broad African" type, following Keita.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001288.html

[This message has been edited by Evil Euro (edited 07 February 2005).]

---

Thought Writes:

Evil "E", were you a more noble person you would have given my ENTIRE statement to provide context.

Thought Posts The Full Statement:

posted 07 February 2005 08:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
"Negroid" has a specific anthropological meaning...
[This message has been edited by Evil Euro (edited 07 February 2005).]

---

Thought Writes:

posted 07 February 2005 08:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Ho-hum. Southern Europeans are paternally Caucasoid...as are Ethiopians:

---

Thought Writes:

The real reason Evil "E" never tells us specifically what a "caucasoid" is, is because once he does the absurdity of making mesolithic Sub-Saharan East Africans "caucasoid" is apparent to even the most radical Medi-Centrist.

posted 07 February 2005 10:20 PM            

It doesn't have a an equivalent of the NAZI movement that annihiliated minorities for being insufficently 'racially pure' - 'Sinoids'.

Therefore it hasn't spawned the same psychological disorder as seen among the Southern European ethnophobes, via their response to the Aryanists in the North.

China isn't Europe.

posted 08 February 2005 07:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Euro-liar talking more crap, Ethiopians aren't paternally Caucasoid, the study you quoted from even says that they have uneven male vs female geneflow, stop telling lies you idiot based on an old outdated study and your failure to properly read a map

---

Here's another map that confirms the one I posted. Ethiopians are in the Afro-Asiatic cluster paternally, near other Caucasoids and far from the Niger-Congo groups.

posted 08 February 2005 07:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Evil "E", were you a more noble person you would have given my ENTIRE statement to provide context.

---

posted 08 February 2005 07:54 AM            

quote:

---

Irrelevant I proved that you know what's meant by "Negroid".

---

posted 08 February 2005 08:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Here's another map that confirms the one I posted. Ethiopians are in the Afro-Asiatic cluster paternally, near other Caucasoids and far from the Niger-Congo groups.

I suppose you're going to tell me that this too is from an "old outdated study".

---

Look in that cluster and you will also see the Lemba people there, who are NOT paternal Caucasoid and look very distinct from Ethiopians, the plot only confirms what I have said in that it indicates uneven male vs female mixture. Dumbass!

posted 08 February 2005 03:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Irrelevant. I proved that you know what's meant by "Negroid". Hence, you've been playing dumb.

---

Thought Writes:

Evil "E", even over the internet you should be more honest than that. I stated that I don't use the term "Negroid". Within the context of my statement I pointed out that I was interpreting this term for someone else. Just be honest and give us YOUR definition of the term so we can move this debate to its logical conclusion.

posted 08 February 2005 08:42 PM            

All are wrong. This map is not outdated, it is simply false. I can't believe you would actually use this. For the past two weeks, you have proven nothing.

posted 08 February 2005 09:21 PM            

quote:

---

Instead of going on the defensive, we need to go on the offensive. We need to attack Europe's 'purity'.[/B]

---

posted 08 February 2005 09:57 PM            

quote:

---

Roy_2k5:
EuroDisney, That map states:
- Ethiopians closer to Europeans than Algerians
- English are closer to French than the Aussies
- Poles are closer to Italians than Czechs

All are wrong. This map is not outdated, it is simply false. I can't believe you would actually use this. For the past two weeks, you have proven nothing.

Over four threads have been created by EuroDisney, and I am quite certain that he will open up another thread soon. We need to change our strategy. Instead of going on the defensive, we need to go on the offensive. We need to attack Europe's 'purity'.

---

Actually the opposite end of the ongoing exchanges, i.e., from that of Evil Euro's ideology, has consistently been on the offensive. The onus is really on Evil Euro to justify using terms like "Caucasian" on both DNA and indigenous people of East sub-Saharan Africa. He hasn't proven that E3b or PN2 clade for that matter, is of Eurasian origin, which is what he is trying to do here. In his mind, the alternative is to have E3b not be of 'sub-Saharan' African origin, for he sees tropical 'sub-Sahara' as being synonymous with "Negroid", and therefore the need for Ethiopians to also fit into what he perceives as a "non-Negroid" zone, i.e., North Africa. A simple reference to a map is only needed to show how mentally devoid that notion is. As pointed out earlier, he uses these terms in a manner, so as to hide behind them. He has therefore continued to dodge the request for him to define his terms, one which will undoubtedly expose him. He's also failed to provide chronology of the appearance of so-called "Negroids" and "Caucasians" in East Africa, not to mention the 'mysterious' Caucasian ancestors to East Africans. It is not so much the question of being defensive, than correcting and exposing Evil Euro's fragile ideology. The burden is on Evil Euro to prove that southern Europeans have no admixture from tropical Africa, when indeed an apparent ingredient of their gene pool, the E3b, happens to be that of a tropical sub-Saharan African origin!

posted 19 April 2005 07:54 AM            

quote:

---

Here is a critical assessment of Howell's fallacious methodology:

Assessment of classification of crania using Fordisc 2.0: Nubian X-Group Test.

J. Edwards, A. Leathers, et al.

...based on Howell’s sampling Fordisc 2.0 authors state that "there are no races, only populations," yet it is clear that Howell was intent on providing known groups that would be distributed among the continental "racial" groups.

We tested the accuracy and effectiveness of Fordisc 2.0 using twelve cranial measurements from a homogeneous population from the X-Group period of Sudanese Nubia (350CE-550CE). When the Fordisc program classified the adult X-Group crania, only 51 (57.3%) of 89 individuals were classified within groups from Africa. Others were placed in such diverse groups as Polynesian (11.24%), European (7.86%), Japanese (4.49%), Native American (3.37%), Peruvian (3.36%), Australian (1.12), Tasmanian (1.12%), and Melanesian (1.12%). The implications of these findings suggest that classifying populations, whether by geography or by "race", is not morphologically or biologically accurate because of the wide variation even in homogeneous populations.

---

The truth is out there: how NOT to use FORDISC.

Freid et al. (2005)